Posted September 18, 2018
According to the Wayback Machine no, but the Grim Dawn forum thread linked to above confirms that (a) it did work on XP; (b) the Steam version still works and (c) the developers had no intention of withdrawing XP support.
Olauron: Do you mean that in the past the game card of Grim Dawn included not only Works on: Windows (Vista, 7, 8, 10), but XP as well?
I also didn't "purchase" Grim Dawn through GOG but received a gift code as a Kickstarter backer so never saw the need to review the gamecard.
I'd broadly agree (though WinXP receiving no further updates means the support cost should be marginal compared to, say, Win10 with its Creator and Anniversary updates). However this is a case of support being inhibited by a third-party component (galaxy.dll) and while I don't expect GOG to revert to supporting WinXP with Galaxy, I do feel it is reasonable to have a workaround such as a "fixed" game executable that doesn't require galaxy.dll or a dummy version of galaxy.dll that requires (and supplies) no real functionality.
Ancient-Red-Dragon: To try and remain with Window XP or Windows 7 forever is an uphill, losing battle that cannot possibly be won, if for no other reason than that eventually no new hardware or software will be compatible with them. And all hardware dies, eventually.
(Edit: I did try removing galaxy.dll but Grim Dawn then crashed with a message about the missing DLL, copying in an older version of galaxy.dll from Pillars of Eternity caused GD to crash with an invalid entry point error).
Hopefully by then, Linux (or some other form of Unix) should have overcome the downsides I note later.
Ancient-Red-Dragon: I'm just trying to show you that the longer you try to hold on to XP, the more problems like this you are going to run into, and eventually it's inevitably going to reach the point where you have to let it go.
Then please excuse my thread necromancy, but it did/does seem more appropriate to post a follow-up here than to create a new thread with a similar title.
Darvond: Thanks for dragging a year old thread back to life. Now, back in my day, it was considered poor form to bring back a thread after 30 days, much less a whole year.
There's very little (and I would argue almost nothing of significance) that later versions of DirectX offer feature-wise (variable softness shadows? new forms of anti-aliasing?) aside from tesselation and that, for various reasons, can't be used with anything the player may interact with so tends to be limited to cut-scenes or very distant objects.
Darvond: • On the matter of Grim Dawn, if you use Windows XP, you're not only limiting yourself, but the game as well. Windows XP only supports DirectX up to 9.0c, and I'm sure it's a similar story for OpenGL as well.
With regard to OpenGL, the latest stable release is 4.6 and I have version 4.3 on my system, so unlikely to be a big difference.
Given that 64-bit Windows has a variety of its own issues (Patchguard hobbling security software, the requirement for separate Program Files folders for 32- and 64-bit code, storing 64-bit system code under Windows\System32\ and 32-bit equivalents under Windows\SYSWOW64, inability to handle 16-bit executables, inability to load unsigned drivers) I'm quite happy to stay with 32-bit.
Darvond: Most installations of Windows XP are 32 bit as well, bringing a massive slew of limitations as well. There certainly is a 64 bit version of Windows XP, but that also has problems.
Grim Dawn was funded in May 2012 over a year before XP's end of support, which is when Crate pledged Windows support and a DRM-free release. The wait for a full release has been prolonged, but backers shouldn't suffer any negative consequence for that.
Darvond: ...GOG has no reason to support Windows XP any longer, as the usage has fallen comfortably well under the MOE. Windows XP support officially ended for any application in 2014, after Grim Dawn was released. I suspect that the compatibility had was a complete accident, and not an intended feature.
I remain with XP because I prefer it - it runs the software I have purchased over the last 20 years, including nearly a thousand games.
Darvond: Your asterisks don't explain why you remain with XP, but rather a large amount of hoops and workaround you use to justify remaining. This is in my visual imagination, akin to keeping several buckets and rolls of duct tape to keep a rotting boat around.
If you researched rather than imagined, you'd have found that, with the possible exception of Tiny Firewall, System Safety Monitor (SSM) is one of the most fully featured security utilities for the Windows platform allowing control of what programs can run (optionally restricting programs further by checking parameters, essential for "programs that run programs" like cmd.exe, javaw.exe or rundll32.exe), what drivers can load, what hooks can be set, what registry entries can be modified and whether to allow a process low-level keyboard, disk or physical memory access.
Darvond: Those little bits of third party software, I imagine could easily be routed or circumvented with laughable ease. (I can't help but note that both are referenced in the past tense and the latter is 10 years dead.)
As long as it is installed on a clean system and configured properly, there is no realistic way for malware to bypass it. It does depend on the user making the right choices to its prompts, so would be of no use to those who just click on Allow/Install/Screw Me by default.
It is no longer commercially available (and ditto for Process Guard) which is a crying shame (the diligent should be able to find a copy of SSM and a "Valued Customer" key offered by SysSafety before they closed), but unlike anti-virus software with its need for constant signature updates, it doesn't require support to maintain its effectiveness (unless the OS changes).
Because Linux doesn't have a "decent" firewall that can control access on a per-process/program basis (the closest would be the likes of Douane or TuxGuardian, but they only allow/deny per application and cannot restrict an application to specific ports or IP addresses/domain names). Since I use Tor for web access, I like to be able to block my browser from direct (port 80, 443) access to ensure that any "Tor-bypass" tricks are prevented.
Because Linux doesn't have drivers for all the hardware I own (this applies to Win10 also).
Of course, things will likely improve and I periodically check, but for now Linux is a no-go for me.
Post edited September 18, 2018 by AstralWanderer